It is time for a change in the way things are moderated

[ParadigmShifter]

We all know who the worst mods are, we're just not allowed to talk about it.

 

[azzaman333]

We all know who the worst mods are, we're just not allowed to talk about it.

We're barely able to suggest that there are moderators who aren't fantastic without incurring moderator wrath.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

A lot of OT posters are leaving. Are they going to do anything or just let it happen. There needs to be something to change.

Start by doing at least one thing right and repealing that one rule. You know which one Im talking about. And I know -- don't discuss that stupid rule. It's the wrong thing to do -- but I don't care.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Well I wouldn't say that rule is the major problem we have with the moderators

I admit it does seem that moderators are trolling certain posters because of the undiscussed rule though.

It also seems acceptable to troll large groups of people rather than point out that trolling large groups of people is not good, since that is implying a poster may be trolling.

 

[GenMarshall]

A lot of OT posters are leaving. Are they going to do anything or just let it happen. There needs to be something to change.

Be the change that you want to be (Or something Fifty said years ago).

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Fifty left years ago too.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

After some time, I just feel like yelling "let me up! I've had enough!"

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Well yeah. I like Hawkwind, and try and post as many Hawkwind vids as I can, with little or no excuse. Good job Hawkwind isn't on the banned list of topics. One thing I don't do though, is start as many Hawkwind threads as I can get away with

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

Its just such a stupid rule, when even one teeny tiny little mention will result in a friendly notice in the private message inbox. Counterproductive, too, if the goal is to make a shut up about that topic. Don't they realize it only results in resentment?

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Well, I guess life isn't fair

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

And then people wonder why Im considering leaving!

 

[Heretic_Cata]

It IS time for a change in the way things are moderated, just don't change the tp rule.

 

[Plotinus]

If members think there are ways in which moderation can be improved then we welcome such ideas and will consider them - bearing in mind that the moderation of this site has developed over many years and many different things have been suggested or even tried in the past. Also bear in mind that almost any idea has vocal proponents and also vocal opponents. It is easy to think "everyone wants this" when in fact they don't. The idea of splitting up OT is one of them.

The same goes for the question of how strict or lax the moderation should be. There are plenty of posters who think it's far too strict. There are plenty more who think it's far too lax. Which bunch should we listen to?

OT used to be a fun place to post, but now it is far too serious. So often you can't make a joke without getting a warning or worse. The fun has been sucked out of a forum that once used to have life in it. Now there are so many rules that it is not worth posting there any more.

That's still just your perception. If most members thought that, then yes, we would have a problem. But as I say, plenty of members think precisely the opposite.

Just as an example, the Nexus forums are far stricter than us, and they seem to be doing pretty well.

I really think there should be a system of permanent bannings, for stuff like advocating mass murder, genocide denial, etc. To be honest, it's completely rediculous that people who've done such things are permanently banned from posting from other forums, while here all they get is the equivalent of a slap on the wrist.

We don't permban people outright for this (although personally I would), but we give them immediate bans and warn them that repeat offences will lead to permanent bans very quickly.

Have a series of candidates become Junior Mods for six months. Those that perform their duties sufficiently become Moderators for eight months. After those eight months, you appoint the one or two best Moderators as Super Mods, and ditch the rest.

This is a good idea. The problem would be what happens when a bunch of moderators effectively get fired. That sort of thing is a recipe for tensions down the line.

As I said, we welcome constructive ideas, but complaining about things like poster-specific rules, particular moderators, and the like isn't acceptable here. If you have a problem with particular things of that kind you should raise it in private.

 

[salty mud]

But nothing gets done in private. The mods just put up a brick wall, "I'm right, you're wrong" attitude. Hence why the complaints have now gone public.

 

[azzaman333]

But nothing gets done in private. The mods just put up a brick wall, "I'm right, you're wrong" attitude. Hence why the complaints have now gone public.

Where they instantly get infracted for PDMA.

 

[Maniacal]

nevermind

 

[North King]

As I said, we welcome constructive ideas, but complaining about things like poster-specific rules, particular moderators, and the like isn't acceptable here. If you have a problem with particular things of that kind you should raise it in private.

I'm not really invested in this topic at all, but I do have to say that this is one of the most ridiculous rules you could have in this context. Providing evidence and examples is one of the most important facets of a competent, cogent argument. By stripping that away, you're neutering any idea that we could raise, and ultimately making posters' commentary look weak because they're forced to deal in such vague terminology.

Obviously the PDMA rule is there because you don't want to open the floodgates and have people complain about each individual infraction and have the mods be forced to justify each individual moderation action. That's totally legitimate and understandable. But there are several people in this thread who have had to say such gems as "there's a certain group of moderators who infract a certain group of people based on reputation, and there's another group of posters who never get infracted." That sounds utterly banal, and because of its sheer banality it sounds like people ineffectually whining about a problem.

If you want real suggestions for how to change things, you'd allow posts which outline systematic biases in moderation. PDMA should be allowed if you can cite >10 separate examples* of a trend in moderation; this way it is not directed at a specific infraction, but rather towards underlying trends which we've all been doing a verbal dance around for the past seven pages.


*arbitrary number

 

[.Shane.]

What is this easy way to moderate that you speak of? The easiest moderation is no moderation, which is not what people seem to want.

Except, of course, when they don't!

Also, we're far too Hotel California to simply let people go after a week.

I chortled at this.

Well yeah. I like Hawkwind, and try and post as many Hawkwind vids as I can, with little or no excuse. Good job Hawkwind isn't on the banned list of topics. One thing I don't do though, is start as many Hawkwind threads as I can get away with

Good lord. Hawkwind. At least you didn't go all Gentle Giant on us.

----
----
Speaking just for myself...

My biggest impediment is simply that CFC is not my #1 priority in life. Its not even #2 or #3, etc... so, when I am here and I can concentrate, I try my best to be fair and guided by the spirit of the law. But I have long periods (recently, for example) where my RL demands prevent me from being here other than the occasional drive-by post.

So, I think a lot of the variation in OT moderation comes from the ebb and flow staff who all exist on different RL calendars w/ different RL priorities. We could add more staff, but the problem with adding more and more staff is that actually causes wider variation in moderation.

There is no good answer.

 

[NickyJ]

But nothing gets done in private. The mods just put up a brick wall, "I'm right, you're wrong" attitude. Hence why the complaints have now gone public.

Where they instantly get infracted for PDMA.

Precisely. It's extremely annoying.

I'm not really invested in this topic at all, but I do have to say that this is one of the most ridiculous rules you could have in this context. Providing evidence and examples is one of the most important facets of a competent, cogent argument. By stripping that away, you're neutering any idea that we could raise, and ultimately making posters' commentary look weak because they're forced to deal in such vague terminology.

Obviously the PDMA rule is there because you don't want to open the floodgates and have people complain about each individual infraction and have the mods be forced to justify each individual moderation action. That's totally legitimate and understandable. But there are several people in this thread who have had to say such gems as "there's a certain group of moderators who infract a certain group of people based on reputation, and there's another group of posters who never get infracted." That sounds utterly banal, and because of its sheer banality it sounds like people ineffectually whining about a problem.

If you want real suggestions for how to change things, you'd allow posts which outline systematic biases in moderation. PDMA should be allowed if you can cite >10 separate examples* of a trend in moderation; this way it is not directed at a specific infraction, but rather towards underlying trends which we've all been doing a verbal dance around for the past seven pages.


*arbitrary number

Agreed. For effective argument about infracting, we have to be able to point out actual occurrences.

Speaking just for myself...

My biggest impediment is simply that CFC is not my #1 priority in life. Its not even #2 or #3, etc... so, when I am here and I can concentrate, I try my best to be fair and guided by the spirit of the law. But I have long periods (recently, for example) where my RL demands prevent me from being here other than the occasional drive-by post.

So, I think a lot of the variation in OT moderation comes from the ebb and flow staff who all exist on different RL calendars w/ different RL priorities. We could add more staff, but the problem with adding more and more staff is that actually causes wider variation in moderation.

That may be so, but that does not make a good excuse for spotty, inconsistent moderating. Banning someone for quoting a certain singer* and not banning someone who trolls entire topics is simply inexcusable.

*And there we go again with the stupid PDMA rules. Can we please just skip the stupid petty, trivial beating around the bush and just say it outright?

 

[leif erikson]

If you want real suggestions for how to change things, you'd allow posts which outline systematic biases in moderation. PDMA should be allowed if you can cite >10 separate examples* of a trend in moderation; this way it is not directed at a specific infraction, but rather towards underlying trends which we've all been doing a verbal dance around for the past seven pages.


*arbitrary number

You have that ability now. If you have information and want to present it, please use the Private Message system to a moderator. We have a forum where we can post it in order to discuss proposed actions. It may take us a while as we try to come to consensus, but we do discuss these types of things.